So it takes a weapon that shoots what - 20 - 30 bullets a minute - to take out a coyote???? Really?

I guess that is why the call him Wiley. The coyote that is. Certainly not the "marksman!"

No, it doesn't take that many rounds to "take out" a 'yote. However, the .223 is an excellent round for coyote hunting, as it has an extremely flat trajectory, and the AR-15 is an extremely accurate platform. Combine the two and you have an excellent tool for removing problem varmints from long range, and you don't normally get close to a coyote.

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

And yes Karen - there may be 40 states where gun deaths don't yet outnumber auto deaths. Just give the NRA time.

When you consider the number of people exposed to autos vs the number of people exposed to guns...well...it is embarrassing, isn't it?

Given that there are 270 million firearms in the US, and the number of automobiles is a fraction of that, which one is statistically more likely to do you harm over the tool's lifetime?

Besides, with concealed carry permits, how do you KNOW how many firearms you are within range of on any given day?

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Of course there is this...once again...the irrefutable fact - a vehicle that kills is not being used as it is designed. A gun that kills is being used as it is designed.

It's not irrefutable. A HMMWV (hummer, for those in the civilian world) is designed for the military, hence, by extension, designed to kill. The same goes for the ever popular Jeeps. A firearm is a tool designed to propel a projectile at high speed. What one does with that projectile is entirely the decision of the person pulling the trigger. There are rounds with absolutely scary velocities that are absolutely useless outside of the target range. It's a tool. Period.

The one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind wasn't king, he was stoned for seeing light.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Now that we've finally decided we can actually have a conversation about gun control in this country, I think those of us who are in favor of tougher measures have to face one unavoidable truth: Trying to control guns now is a case of shutting the barn doors after the horse gets out.

Gun-rights advocates are quick to point out, correctly, that as of 2009 there were more than 310 million nonmilitary firearms in the United States. That works out to a rate of about one gun for every U.S. citizen. No other country comes close to such a high rate of ownership. Even if all gun sales were to stop tomorrow, there would still be 310 million guns out there.

One option that has been floated is to enact a program modeled on the one Australia passed following a mass shooting in 1996. A mere two weeks after 35 people were killed in Tasmania, the Australian government approved new gun-control laws and began a buyback program that resulted in 650,000 automatic and semi-automatic weapons being turned in and destroyed. There hasn't been a mass shooting in Australia since.

Of course, this being America, the home of the Second Amendment, I harbor no illusions that such a program will ever become reality here. The gun lobby in this country would never allow something so sensible, and our elected officials, worthless as they are, clearly don't have the guts to make it happen anyway. Thus, I think we need to look at other ways to curb gun violence.

In the absence of a plan to reduce the number of firearms out there, I think the only feasible option is to try to change people's attitudes toward guns. Right now, for whatever reason, gun owners think of themselves as rugged sportsmen and bold, brave defenders of family, liberty and personal property. Whether that self-image is the least bit true is subject to debate, but I think we can change that view with a little effort.

Do you remember a few years ago when people were buying millions of Hummers? To me, those Hummer owners were a lot like gun owners. They had an inflated sense of their own self-importance, and they thought owning a massive tank-like vehicle made them somehow more virile and masculine. Then the rest of us pointed out that owning a Hummer was an obvious sign of a person making up for a physical shortcoming, and Hummer went out of business virtually overnight.

So, since I'm not particularly concerned about the National Rifle Association ruining my political career, I'll be the one to say it: If you own multiple guns or feel the need to possess a military-style assault weapon, it's because you have a small penis.

Let me clarify that statement a little, if I may. Owning a handgun to protect your home and your family is fine. Owning a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target shooting is also fine. But owning lots of guns or pseudo-machine guns means you have a tiny wiener and you're incredibly self-conscious about it. That's the plain and simple truth, even if it's not true.

Now, I know a lot of you are probably saying to yourselves, "But Todd, plenty of women also own guns. What about them? Do they have small penises, too?"

My answer to that question would be: Yes. Yes they do. Women who own assault weapons have tiny penises, just like their male counterparts. That would explain why they're angry enough to buy a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

To those of you out there who, like me, have had enough of all the shooting and killing in this country, I encourage you to spread the rumor that when gun owners talk about their 9 mms, they're actually referring to their genitalia and not the caliber of their weapons. With any luck, we can stigmatize gun ownership and encourage people to give up their firearms willingly.

And to those of you out there who own assault weapons or numerous pistols, I encourage you to seek less violent ways to make up for your shortcomings. There are thousands of "natural male enhancement" products out there, and if Austin Powers is to be believed, Swedish-made penis-enlargement pumps might actually work. Give those a try. Surely there's some product out there that can make up for your puny wiener more effectively than arming yourself to the teeth.

Todd Hartley hopes the NRA doesn't sabotage his bid to join the local PTA. To read more or leave a comment, please visit zerobudget.net.

I've Been Boo'd

I've been Frosted

Today is the oldest you've ever been, and the youngest you'll ever be again.

No, it doesn't take that many rounds to "take out" a 'yote. However, the .223 is an excellent round for coyote hunting, as it has an extremely flat trajectory, and the AR-15 is an extremely accurate platform. Combine the two and you have an excellent tool for removing problem varmints from long range, and you don't normally get close to a coyote.

Besides, with concealed carry permits, how do you KNOW how many firearms you are within range of on any given day?

It's not irrefutable. A HMMWV (hummer, for those in the civilian world) is designed for the military, hence, by extension, designed to kill. The same goes for the ever popular Jeeps. A firearm is a tool designed to propel a projectile at high speed. What one does with that projectile is entirely the decision of the person pulling the trigger. There are rounds with absolutely scary velocities that are absolutely useless outside of the target range. It's a tool. Period.

Somehow I cannot help but believe you do not need an assault weapon to kill a coyote. Native Americans were able to do it rather well without. Sounds like shooting wolves from helicopters to me.

I suppose a gernade would be an "excellent tool" for getting rid of possums as well. But that doesn't mean I need gernades to do it.

Thank you for making my point about concealed carry. I do not know how many firearms are within my range on any given day. And I think that is a terrible shame. And morally wrong.

It is so very kind of you to translate HMMWV to English for poor people who do not have your military linguistics. But your logic is about as faulty as it can be. Because something is designed for the military does not in any way shape or form means it is designed to kill. To use your logic Ready to Eat Meals are designed to kill. (Insert joke here) Medals for valor are designed to kill. John Phillip Sousa music was designed to kill.

Irrefutable. Vehicles are designed to move goods or people from one place to another. When used correctly they do not cause death. Gun, rifles, firearms are designed to kill people. When used correctly they cause death. Indded a tool. A tool to kill.

One does not NEED a gun to kill a coyote, any more than one NEEDS a fork to eat his or her food. They are both just tools that let the person accomplish the task more efficiently, with less mess.

You are kidding right? That an assault rifle kills a coyote with "less mess"??? An animal killed with multiple bullets is "less mess" than an animal killed with one or even two clean shots. It seems to me if someone is not good enough shooter to kill the animal without "mess", they should find some other form of recreation - or occupation.

Even I, not closely tied to anyone who shots animals...can't buy that one!

Anymore than I can buy that jeeps and HMMWV were designed (although adapted would be the better word) to kill. These are vehicles designed to move people or goods from place to place - albeit those people may be involved in killing other people. Tanks are vehicles designed to kill people. (I know this because, during WWII, my dad was involved in designing and testing tanks.) Perhaps your brother has confused them.

Although I have had a bit of fun with the visual of a jeep being used to kill the enemy. I imagine folks at Camp Pendleton practicing killing people with jeeps. Very fun. Silly, but fun!

My opinion on guns-its not the guns that kill people, its the people behind the gun that kills people. Sure ban the automatics and AK 47's and the other military weapons and keep normal pistols (shotguns for hunters) alone. One why punish the ones who uses the guns right for the idiots who don't and the bad guys will go to the black market and still have guns.

In loving memory of Tigger 2003-2009. In loving memory of Ashes 2001-2013.

You are kidding right? That an assault rifle kills a coyote with "less mess"??? An animal killed with multiple bullets is "less mess" than an animal killed with one or even two clean shots. It seems to me if someone is not good enough shooter to kill the animal without "mess", they should find some other form of recreation - or occupation.

You don't seem to realize that these weapons being talked about in the press can (and often are) be used to fire a single shot at a time. Not everyone who uses them just holds down the trigger until a clip runs out. And being able to kill a predatory animal accurately, with one clean shot, is way less messy. So you think farmers, ranchers, or other defending their animals should come up with another "occupation" if they cannot kill the predator neatly, but don't think they should be allowed to use an accurate weapon? You are contradicting yourself.

You are kidding right? That an assault rifle kills a coyote with "less mess"??? An animal killed with multiple bullets is "less mess" than an animal killed with one or even two clean shots. It seems to me if someone is not good enough shooter to kill the animal without "mess", they should find some other form of recreation - or occupation.

Even I, not closely tied to anyone who shots animals...can't buy that one!

That is because your logic, as usual, is nonexistent. An AR is a highly accurate platform. As such, you don't need more than one or two shots to put down a coyote. However, like most predatory canines, they move in packs. You may need to shoot more than one. My neighbor raises horses. He uses a semi automatic rifle to eliminate problem animals as he isn't a professional sniper. Sometimes it takes more than one shot to eliminate the animal. Should he give up farming because he doesn't meet your bar as a marksman?

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Anymore than I can buy that jeeps and HMMWV were designed (although adapted would be the better word) to kill. These are vehicles designed to move people or goods from place to place - albeit those people may be involved in killing other people. Tanks are vehicles designed to kill people. (I know this because, during WWII, my dad was involved in designing and testing tanks.) Perhaps your brother has confused them.

No, I haven't confused anything. One of the requirements for WW2 jeeps was that they would be able to use various and sundry weapons in several different types of mounts. Hence, they were designed to kill. HMMWVs mount several different types of weapons from different weapons stations as well. They were, in fact, designed as killing machines. I know a little bit about both weapons systems, I've used both. First hand, not what my father told me at the kitchen table. Gunnery table 8 exists for a reason.

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Although I have had a bit of fun with the visual of a jeep being used to kill the enemy. I imagine folks at Camp Pendleton practicing killing people with jeeps. Very fun. Silly, but fun!

Again, various gunnery tables involve the use of jeeps with ring mounted weapons (when they were still in the system) and HMMWVs. Not silly at all, except in your mind.

The one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind wasn't king, he was stoned for seeing light.